AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Lee McKnight]

Alejandro,

I still don;t see the disagreement, I was just making your specific
apwg point in class an hour ago.  and yes of course governance should be
appropriate to the domain, and we are just developing mechanisms for
particular areas, that's the whole point.

In earlier commentary I was talking about the framework thing as
probably a ten year process, so any 'premature' conclusions are a decade
away. 

And I doubt ICANN, or industry for that matter, need fear a discussion
at IGF II.  You're seriously worried?  You see how well the Bush admin's
'I don't want to talk about it, and especially not with them' policies
worked  - I advise a more proactive, and positive, agenda-setting
stance.  Because otherwise you can be sure it will be spun by others.  

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> 4/16/2007 5:39 PM >>>
Lee,

where we differ mostly is that I still think we are in a stage in which
we 
need to build the governance (structures, organizations, or in some
cases 
only practices) adequate for each problem.

Take a look at http://www.apwg.org to see how different phishing looks

from the DNS at this stage, for example...

Re your concept of Framework Convention, the idea becomes clearer - you

want it drafted by all stakeholders, then signed by governments? - and
has 
some parallels with environmental governance including all the thorns
;-).

I still see huge differences but none that impede rational discourse
and 
civil treatment at this stage of discussion. Not ripe for Rio though -

this plays too much into the local hosts' very own agenda. And they are

not playing a loyal game. The practical politics is another set of 
considerations of much weight here.

Glad to talk to you.

Yours,

alx


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  . 
.  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx 
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org 
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org 
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
.  .


On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 -0400
> From: Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de,
>     Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Wolfgang, Alejandro,
>
> I generally agree with both of you.
>
> Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and
> something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might
be
> needed. In time.  And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet
> governance, not global governance in general.
>
> But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am
expressly
> not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the
euro
> coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to
rationalize
> a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity
in
> our case.  A technical matter.
>
> ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission -
without
> the political oversight.  Which led to the natural reaction of
> WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite
> aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather
stay
> out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's
> noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to.
In
> EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to
> leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In
general.
>
> IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the
> design of its makers little to no power.  Odds on it gaining hard
power
> are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months
old.
> So, too soon to say.  But expressing opinions on what it should or
> should not be next are appropriate.
>
> Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and
> authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it
is
> the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so
best
> just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there
> is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this
discussion.
> (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction'
from
> igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d
> recommendations.)
>
> I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help
> elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet
> governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is
> necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham
principally
> by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email
list
> discussion wouldn;t count as part of it.
>
> In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with
> Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I.  Not very
state-centric
> so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t
say
> 'start.'
>
> Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda
of
> IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we
going,
> with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts
not
> yet created.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/16/2007 9:59 AM
>>>>
> Alejandro:
>
> What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up
> institutions, based on principles, when doing so will solve a
problem,
> and then of course build up the right type of organization (always
> making sure that the different stakeholders are represented
properly,
> the rule of law obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an
> all-encompassing institution.
>
> So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat
different
> beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on
the
> coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value
identifiers
> of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message,
studying
> the ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow
to
> build up
> other organizations properly.
>
> In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make
sure
> that Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty
> work. That is one of the risks that I see this year for moving
towards a
> Framework Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates
with
> the idea of a Global Government, besides other objections that may
> become a separate track when timely.
>
> Wolfgang:
>
> I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer,
> trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing
into
> directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where
a
> "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of
> multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems
with
> the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty)
are
> the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us
that
> some people will start to fill the box with something that the
creators
> of  such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means
much
> more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning
that
> we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political
and
> technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full
> responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a
> division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions.
Here
> I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be
> neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big
> organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined
> (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very
> specified cases.
>
> Regards
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance